Re: POLITICS My Ron 2008 Endorsement

[Guest guest]

> As far as I can tell he is against raising the minimum wage, and is

rated

> rather poorly on labor issues.

Raising the minimum wage creates less jobs, and creates an even

bigger incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants under the

table or move more jobs overseas.

>He is against colleges considering race and

> sex in admissions.

So you are FOR favorable treatment or discrimination on the basis of

sex and race????

> He¹s voted yes on restricting bankruptcy rules.

When individuals declare bankruptcy, it hurts the individual.

Corporations pay no taxes, and write off these losses passing them

back to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

>Voted yes on making Bush tax cuts permanent.

Because the government is SO efficient at spending our money. The

government reaching into our pockets is theft. I certainly hope my

tax dollars don't go to pay for 's 400 dollar haircuts

while he is on his 'poverty' tour.

Besides I am pretty certain that over 60% of the US population owns

stocks.

> Yes ­ he¹s really interested in the common man.

Any politician who is for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve, is

definitely FOR for the common man. The hidden inflation tax and

income tax are the chief reasons poor and middle class people earn a

wage that buys less and less every year.

Marc

[Guest guest]

> Because the government is SO efficient at spending our money. The

> government reaching into our pockets is theft. I certainly hope my

> tax dollars don't go to pay for 's 400 dollar haircuts

> while he is on his 'poverty' tour.

Wait--you're saying tax payers paid for his haircut? Try: Not. Not even

if he's elected.

People who point out ' hair are basically saying that rich

people are hypocritical if they care about the poor. And that's

ridiculous.

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

>>> >> As far as I can tell he is against raising the minimum wage, and is

>> > rated

>>> >> rather poorly on labor issues.

>> >

>> > Raising the minimum wage creates less jobs, and creates an even

>> > bigger incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants under the

>> > table or move more jobs overseas.

>

> Sure. It¹s ridiculous to set some kind of standard so that workers cannot be

> exploited beyond that threshold, and it¹s ridiculous to even consider laws

> against employers doing that, etc. It¹s really the old trickle down theory ­

> anything you do to help the poor winds up hurting them so why bother. Damn ­

> you know, I think that we should bring back child labor, which will work to

> prevent child labor. All laws work against themselves, so let¹s abolish them

> all.

>

>> >

>>> >> He is against colleges considering race and

>>> >> sex in admissions.

>> >

>> > So you are FOR favorable treatment or discrimination on the basis of

>> > sex and race????

>

> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH. 4 question marks. You have skills, I¹ll grant you that. Well,

> I think that when people have been historically discriminated against so that

> they have less opportunity, it is entirely appropriate to give them favorable

> treatment. If a black kid goes to inferior skills, has a broken home, or

> whatever, due to poverty, racism ­ yeah ­ I think it¹s the mark of just and

> compassionate society to recognize that. I consider it the mark of a heartless

> ass to view this as not even worthy of being on the table for discussion.

>> >

>>> >> He¹s voted yes on restricting bankruptcy rules.

>> >

>> > When individuals declare bankruptcy, it hurts the individual.

>> > Corporations pay no taxes, and write off these losses passing them

>> > back to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

>

> ????? I¹ll borrow your 4 exclamation points and raise you one.

>

>> >

>>> >> Voted yes on making Bush tax cuts permanent.

>> >

>> > Because the government is SO efficient at spending our money. The

>> > government reaching into our pockets is theft. I certainly hope my

>> > tax dollars don't go to pay for 's 400 dollar haircuts

>> > while he is on his 'poverty' tour.

>> > Besides I am pretty certain that over 60% of the US population owns

>> > stocks.

>

> Well, it¹s a complex issue, reduced to you to paying for haircuts. Your

> obviously an educated man. But damn yes ­ I want to see the rich paying a far

> greater proportion of taxes than they do now. I¹d also like them spent on more

> valuable things than killing Iraqis.

>

>> >

>>> >> Yes ­ he¹s really interested in the common man.

>> >

>> > Any politician who is for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve, is

>> > definitely FOR for the common man. The hidden inflation tax and

>> > income tax are the chief reasons poor and middle class people earn a

>> > wage that buys less and less every year.

>

> So, you tax them less, and you tax the rich more.

>

>> >

>> > Marc

[Guest guest]

> Wait--you're saying tax payers paid for his haircut? Try: Not. Not

even

> if he's elected.

Didn't say that. I said I hope my tax dollars didn't pay for it.

> People who point out ' hair are basically saying that rich

> people are hypocritical if they care about the poor. And that's

> ridiculous.

I find this amusing, since socialists like go to great

lengths to avoid paying taxes, but except everyone else to basically

become slaves to the government. " Do as I say, not as I do. " Going

to work for a hedge fund to quote 'learn about poverty' is probably one

of the most illogical ways of thinking I have ever come across.

Marc

[Guest guest]

Thanks very much.

On Jul 29, 2007, at 6:38 PM, Lynn Siprelle wrote:

> On Jul 29, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Parashis wrote:

>

>> I don't understand how you do the " cache " thing. I'm on his web

>> site right now and don't see a Google search field for his site, just

>> the regular Google search field in the upper right header bar right up

>> near the edge.

>

> It's not on his website. Go straight to Google itself. On almost all

> Google results you'll see the term " cached " in light blue letters. If

> you click on it you'll see what Google saw the last time it looked at

> the page.

>

> Lynn S.

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

I put the site line in the Google search field and the result was a

page that said

Your search - site:ronpaul2008.com environment - did not match any

documents.

Was that just a sample or can you give me an example that would give me

a page so I could see what you mean.

On Jul 29, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> You can limit a search to a given web site in google by putting in

> " site:website.com [search term] " and it will only give you results

> from that web site. Do not put in the www or the http, but just the

> domain name.

>

> For example:

>

> site:ronpaul2008.com environment

>

> If there are any such pages, they will turn up. If they've been

> recently deleted, they will still turn up, and you will be able to

> click on " cache " for the particular result and look at the page as it

> existed before it was deleted. The same is true if the page has been

> recently modified.

>

> Chris

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

> > I¹d also like them spent on more

> > valuable things than killing Iraqis.

Well just ask China to stop financing the war. I am definitely for the

immediate pull out of troops in Iraq and other countries for that

matter.

> >

> > So, you tax them less, and you tax the rich more.

> >

We already have a progressive tax in this country. Giving more money

to the government is just plain stupid. Our income taxes go to pay for

the interest on the national debit not for healthcare, welfare and

schools.

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/07, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> I put the site line in the Google search field and the result was a

> page that said

>

> Your search - site:ronpaul2008.com environment - did not match any

> documents.

>

> Was that just a sample or can you give me an example that would give me

> a page so I could see what you mean.

That is the whole point -- clearly, the statement is completely false

that Ron had environmental information on his site that he just

recently removed.

I would have to know of a site that recently deleted or changed a page

in order to tell you what you could search for to see it in action.

However, if you just want to see the " cache " button just search for

anything in Google that turns up results.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Clearly, Ancient is a socialist (with fascist tendencies). I wonder

how he'll feel when we have no health care choices and no real food

choices.

- In , Ancient Eyeball Recipe

<implode7@...> wrote:

>

> >>> >> As far as I can tell he is against raising the minimum

wage, and is

> >> > rated

> >>> >> rather poorly on labor issues.

> >> >

> >> > Raising the minimum wage creates less jobs, and creates an

even

> >> > bigger incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants

under the

> >> > table or move more jobs overseas.

> >

> > Sure. It¹s ridiculous to set some kind of standard so that

workers cannot be

> > exploited beyond that threshold, and it¹s ridiculous to even

consider laws

> > against employers doing that, etc. It¹s really the old trickle

down theory ­

> > anything you do to help the poor winds up hurting them so why

bother. Damn ­

> > you know, I think that we should bring back child labor, which

will work to

> > prevent child labor. All laws work against themselves, so let¹s

abolish them

> > all.

> >

> >> >

> >>> >> He is against colleges considering race and

> >>> >> sex in admissions.

> >> >

> >> > So you are FOR favorable treatment or discrimination on the

basis of

> >> > sex and race????

> >

> > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH. 4 question marks. You have skills, I¹ll grant

you that. Well,

> > I think that when people have been historically discriminated

against so that

> > they have less opportunity, it is entirely appropriate to give

them favorable

> > treatment. If a black kid goes to inferior skills, has a broken

home, or

> > whatever, due to poverty, racism ­ yeah ­ I think it¹s the mark

of just and

> > compassionate society to recognize that. I consider it the mark

of a heartless

> > ass to view this as not even worthy of being on the table for

discussion.

> >> >

> >>> >> He¹s voted yes on restricting bankruptcy rules.

> >> >

> >> > When individuals declare bankruptcy, it hurts the individual.

> >> > Corporations pay no taxes, and write off these losses passing

them

> >> > back to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

> >

> > ????? I¹ll borrow your 4 exclamation points and raise you one.

> >

> >> >

> >>> >> Voted yes on making Bush tax cuts permanent.

> >> >

> >> > Because the government is SO efficient at spending our

money. The

> >> > government reaching into our pockets is theft. I certainly

hope my

> >> > tax dollars don't go to pay for 's 400 dollar

haircuts

> >> > while he is on his 'poverty' tour.

> >> > Besides I am pretty certain that over 60% of the US

population owns

> >> > stocks.

> >

> > Well, it¹s a complex issue, reduced to you to paying for

haircuts. Your

> > obviously an educated man. But damn yes ­ I want to see the rich

paying a far

> > greater proportion of taxes than they do now. I¹d also like them

spent on more

> > valuable things than killing Iraqis.

> >

> >> >

> >>> >> Yes ­ he¹s really interested in the common man.

> >> >

> >> > Any politician who is for the abolishment of the Federal

Reserve, is

> >> > definitely FOR for the common man. The hidden inflation tax

and

> >> > income tax are the chief reasons poor and middle class people

earn a

> >> > wage that buys less and less every year.

> >

> > So, you tax them less, and you tax the rich more.

> >

> >> >

> >> > Marc

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>> >> Wait--you're saying tax payers paid for his haircut? Try: Not. Not

>> > even

>>> >> if he's elected.

>> >

>> > Didn't say that. I said I hope my tax dollars didn't pay for it.

>> >

>>> >> People who point out ' hair are basically saying that rich

>>> >> people are hypocritical if they care about the poor. And that's

>>> >> ridiculous.

>> >

>> > I find this amusing, since socialists like go to great

>> > lengths to avoid paying taxes, but except everyone else to basically

>> > become slaves to the government. " Do as I say, not as I do. " Going

>> > to work for a hedge fund to quote 'learn about poverty' is probably one

>> > of the most illogical ways of thinking I have ever come across.

>> >

>> > Marc

>> >

is a socialist? Are you a nazi?

[Guest guest]

> Clearly you are a classic Œred baiter¹ who throws terms like socialist and

> communist around when someone argues for a progressive politics.

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Clearly, Ancient is a socialist (with fascist tendencies). I wonder

>> > how he'll feel when we have no health care choices and no real food

>> > choices.

>> >

>> > - In

>> > <mailto: %40> , Ancient Eyeball Recipe

>> > <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >>

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I can tell he is against raising the minimum

>> > wage, and is

>>>>>> >>>>> rated

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> rather poorly on labor issues.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> Raising the minimum wage creates less jobs, and creates an

>> > even

>>>>>> >>>>> bigger incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants

>> > under the

>>>>>> >>>>> table or move more jobs overseas.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Sure. It¹s ridiculous to set some kind of standard so that

>> > workers cannot be

>>>> >>> exploited beyond that threshold, and it¹s ridiculous to even

>> > consider laws

>>>> >>> against employers doing that, etc. It¹s really the old trickle

>> > down theory ­

>>>> >>> anything you do to help the poor winds up hurting them so why

>> > bother. Damn ­

>>>> >>> you know, I think that we should bring back child labor, which

>> > will work to

>>>> >>> prevent child labor. All laws work against themselves, so let¹s

>> > abolish them

>>>> >>> all.

>>>> >>>

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> He is against colleges considering race and

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sex in admissions.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> So you are FOR favorable treatment or discrimination on the

>> > basis of

>>>>>> >>>>> sex and race????

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH. 4 question marks. You have skills, I¹ll grant

>> > you that. Well,

>>>> >>> I think that when people have been historically discriminated

>> > against so that

>>>> >>> they have less opportunity, it is entirely appropriate to give

>> > them favorable

>>>> >>> treatment. If a black kid goes to inferior skills, has a broken

>> > home, or

>>>> >>> whatever, due to poverty, racism ­ yeah ­ I think it¹s the mark

>> > of just and

>>>> >>> compassionate society to recognize that. I consider it the mark

>> > of a heartless

>>>> >>> ass to view this as not even worthy of being on the table for

>> > discussion.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> He¹s voted yes on restricting bankruptcy rules.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> When individuals declare bankruptcy, it hurts the individual.

>>>>>> >>>>> Corporations pay no taxes, and write off these losses passing

>> > them

>>>>>> >>>>> back to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> ????? I¹ll borrow your 4 exclamation points and raise you one.

>>>> >>>

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Voted yes on making Bush tax cuts permanent.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> Because the government is SO efficient at spending our

>> > money. The

>>>>>> >>>>> government reaching into our pockets is theft. I certainly

>> > hope my

>>>>>> >>>>> tax dollars don't go to pay for 's 400 dollar

>> > haircuts

>>>>>> >>>>> while he is on his 'poverty' tour.

>>>>>> >>>>> Besides I am pretty certain that over 60% of the US

>> > population owns

>>>>>> >>>>> stocks.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Well, it¹s a complex issue, reduced to you to paying for

>> > haircuts. Your

>>>> >>> obviously an educated man. But damn yes ­ I want to see the rich

>> > paying a far

>>>> >>> greater proportion of taxes than they do now. I¹d also like them

>> > spent on more

>>>> >>> valuable things than killing Iraqis.

>>>> >>>

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes ­ he¹s really interested in the common man.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> Any politician who is for the abolishment of the Federal

>> > Reserve, is

>>>>>> >>>>> definitely FOR for the common man. The hidden inflation tax

>> > and

>>>>>> >>>>> income tax are the chief reasons poor and middle class people

>> > earn a

>>>>>> >>>>> wage that buys less and less every year.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> So, you tax them less, and you tax the rich more.

>>>> >>>

>>>>>> >>>>>

>>>>>> >>>>> Marc

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

[Guest guest]

On 7/30/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Clearly you are a classic Œred baiter¹ who throws terms like socialist and

> > communist around when someone argues for a progressive politics.

> >> > Clearly, Ancient is a socialist (with fascist tendencies). I wonder

> >> > how he'll feel when we have no health care choices and no real food

> >> > choices.

This seems like it could quickly devolve into an area where I might

have to step in as moderator. I would just request that everyone

refrain from using socialist, communist, nazi, etc, as derogatory

terms attacking people's intentions, and only use them where clearly

warranted without the need to read into the person's intentions.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> They do not show all older versions of his

> site, and in fact, as of the writing of this message (which may not

> get posted for a time since for some reason I am on moderation still)

> at a bit after 7pm CDT Sunday, July, 29, 2007, the cached version

> Googled sported was yesterday's. So Renate may well have seen

> something that has since been removed that Google will not keep track

> of indefinitely. And it certainly in not, as you state in a later

> message, reflective of the " original " site. Hardly.

The Wayback Machine does, though:

http://www.archive.org/index.php

Note: I have no dog in this fight re: whether anyone saw anything or

whether anything was removed. Just providing info.

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

For feminist homemakers: http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/07, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> Well, this is not necessarily the case for the keyword nor for the

> cached version. The website is probably updated pretty regularly.

> Keywords come from meta tags or the actual page. They are indexed by

> Google's robots regularly and do not represent a historical account,

> as they change as the site changes, content and all. The cached

> version Google has is just one day, whatever day it is, where they

> show an older version. They do not show all older versions of his

> site, and in fact, as of the writing of this message (which may not

> get posted for a time since for some reason I am on moderation still)

> at a bit after 7pm CDT Sunday, July, 29, 2007, the cached version

> Googled sported was yesterday's. So Renate may well have seen

> something that has since been removed that Google will not keep track

> of indefinitely. And it certainly in not, as you state in a later

> message, reflective of the " original " site. Hardly.

The caches last much longer than days, but they are updated

periodically, so if they happen to be updated the day before you

access it, it will reflect the previous days. However, they do not

update chaches every day, not nearly! I have accessed caches much

older than that.

I did not say anything about reflecting the original site; I said that

if he had made any *recent* changes, you could most likely get the

chached version and substantiate the claim.

I recognize that it isn't a perfect system; however, it would be a

good chance to attempt to substantiate the claim (which, as I pointed

out, does not make any sense to begin with -- and he explains his

stance on the environment quite clearly in the 65-minute Google

interview that is posted on his home page!).

The argument is pointless anyway, because I posted a link to 13 years

worth of his articles, and I'm sure he has plenty on the environment.

The archive is mostly a log of all the speeches he has made in

Congress.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ancient,

> >>> >> However, the notion that trying to derail Clarence was racist

is

> so

> >>> >> ludicrous that I don't know what to say.

> >> >

> >> > right...cuz it is just so self evident that it was otherwise that

> >> > anyone who sees it differently than you has got to be a looney tune,

> >> > LOL

> >

> > Well, yeah ­ I do think that it is self evident that Clarence was

> > chosen as a nominee to play that particular race card ­ that if he were

> > opposed because he was an unqualified, extremist candidate, they could call

it

> > racism.

And I think it just as self-evident, since he was succeeding Thurgood

Marshall, that had someone other than an African-American been sitting

in that position, charges of racism would have flown, regardless of

his/her qualifications, *especially* had it been a woman or different

minority - using race/gender to avoid a certain race so to speak.

Not that it really matters. IMO Marshall wasn't that good of a lawyer,

and has turned out, assuming you share some aspects of his

worldview, much better than advertised, even to the point of making

decisions where it was clear he felt hampered by bad law, but kept his

decision within the bounds of said law.

> >>> >> Clarence silenced no one,

> >> >

> >> > Apparently he did. Metzenbaum went awol, and Ted Kennedy was no where

> >> > to be found during the hearing.

> >

> > Well, the democrats are always wimps....but I don¹t think that this was the

> > cause and effect, i.e. that the power of ¹ words just shut them up.

Kind

> > of funny...

They certainly *literally* shut Metzenbaum up, wimp or no. That was

obvious watching the exchange and the Democrats rightly muffled him as

he was doing them no favors.

And you can shut someone up without having them *literally* stop

talking. They might change their tone or approach or even content, yet

still keep talking, maybe even acting as nothing had happened. The

judiciary committee obviously had to keep asking questions. They

weren't going to sit there in stone cold silence, especially before a

national TV audience. Were you there or just watching on television or

did you even see it at all?

I've been at hearings and watched hearings on TV and video. You really

do miss a lot when you are not there in person.

> >>> >> and if you can spout gibberish like this

> >> >

> >> > You have been around long enough to know my posts are full of

> >> > gibberish, especially when they disagree with you. But that was a

> >> > quote from Clarence , not me.

> >

> > Of course I know that. That doesn¹t mean that both it and what you say

isn¹t

> > gibberish, logically.

Nor does it mean it is gibberish. But be that as it may, I'm not

interested in rehashing the Clarence hearings 16 years later. I

made the point I found it high drama along the lines of Ron

telling the Republican candidates for president they are all wet when

it comes to the Iraq war, which I'm sure his opponents and their

supporters though of as democratic " gibberish " .

If you want to continue to engage in the intricacies of that long ago

hearing rather than the currency of this latest thread on Ron , be

my guest, you will engage alone.

> >> > Not sure how Clarence fits into the Christian thing, but I

> >> > think the Christian zealots are here to balance the anti-Christian

> >> > zealotry you often bring to the table (wait, Ron is...ah...oh

> >> > no...Christian...hmmmm...naw...surely that has nothing....naw...bad

> >> > thought).

> >> >

> >

> > Ah ­ I can see that you like to be consistently silly, but I have NEVER

said

> > anything anti-Christian on this list. You might read what I¹ve said a

little

> > more carefully.

Will do, and I will post my conclusions. I already have a subject

line in mind: RELIGION: The Ancient Eyeball versus Christianity. And I

can already think of several posts that come to mind, although they

were quite awhile ago, so you might not remember them.

As always with you, it should be fun.

By the way, I try to read you very carefully, and in the past you have

bemoaned my precision (if you don't remember any of these instances I

will be happy to cite examples). Let's see how far we make it this

time.

At any rate, you get the last word on Clarence .

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> Ancient,

>

> > >>> >> However, the notion that trying to derail Clarence was

racist

> is

> > so

> > >>> >> ludicrous that I don't know what to say.

> > >> >

> > >> > right...cuz it is just so self evident that it was otherwise that

> > >> > anyone who sees it differently than you has got to be a looney tune,

> > >> > LOL

> > >

> > > Well, yeah ­ I do think that it is self evident that Clarence was

> > > chosen as a nominee to play that particular race card ­ that if he were

> > > opposed because he was an unqualified, extremist candidate, they could

call

> it

> > > racism.

>

> And I think it just as self-evident, since he was succeeding Thurgood

> Marshall, that had someone other than an African-American been sitting

> in that position, charges of racism would have flown, regardless of

> his/her qualifications, *especially* had it been a woman or different

> minority - using race/gender to avoid a certain race so to speak.

>

And the point is? Interesting though - I didn't realize that charges of racism

could fly...

> Not that it really matters. IMO Marshall wasn't that good of a lawyer,

> and has turned out, assuming you share some aspects of his

> worldview, much better than advertised, even to the point of making

> decisions where it was clear he felt hampered by bad law, but kept his

> decision within the bounds of said law.

He's an atrocity.

>

> > >>> >> Clarence silenced no one,

> > >> >

> > >> > Apparently he did. Metzenbaum went awol, and Ted Kennedy was no where

> > >> > to be found during the hearing.

> > >

> > > Well, the democrats are always wimps....but I don¹t think that this was

the

> > > cause and effect, i.e. that the power of ¹ words just shut them up.

> Kind

> > > of funny...

>

> They certainly *literally* shut Metzenbaum up, wimp or no. That was

> obvious watching the exchange and the Democrats rightly muffled him as

> he was doing them no favors.

>

> And you can shut someone up without having them *literally* stop

> talking. They might change their tone or approach or even content, yet

> still keep talking, maybe even acting as nothing had happened. The

> judiciary committee obviously had to keep asking questions. They

> weren't going to sit there in stone cold silence, especially before a

> national TV audience. Were you there or just watching on television or

> did you even see it at all?

>

> I've been at hearings and watched hearings on TV and video. You really

> do miss a lot when you are not there in person.

I watched it on TV. Our world views are so different that I doubt that we see

the same thing anyway....but I do share your disrespect for the Democrats,

though coming from a very different perspective.

>

> > >>> >> and if you can spout gibberish like this

> > >> >

> > >> > You have been around long enough to know my posts are full of

> > >> > gibberish, especially when they disagree with you. But that was a

> > >> > quote from Clarence , not me.

> > >

> > > Of course I know that. That doesn¹t mean that both it and what you say

> isn¹t

> > > gibberish, logically.

>

> Nor does it mean it is gibberish. But be that as it may, I'm not

> interested in rehashing the Clarence hearings 16 years later. I

> made the point I found it high drama along the lines of Ron

> telling the Republican candidates for president they are all wet when

> it comes to the Iraq war, which I'm sure his opponents and their

> supporters though of as democratic " gibberish " .

>

> If you want to continue to engage in the intricacies of that long ago

> hearing rather than the currency of this latest thread on Ron , be

> my guest, you will engage alone.

>

> > >> > Not sure how Clarence fits into the Christian thing, but I

> > >> > think the Christian zealots are here to balance the anti-Christian

> > >> > zealotry you often bring to the table (wait, Ron is...ah...oh

> > >> > no...Christian...hmmmm...naw...surely that has nothing....naw...bad

> > >> > thought).

> > >> >

> > >

> > > Ah ­ I can see that you like to be consistently silly, but I have NEVER

> said

> > > anything anti-Christian on this list. You might read what I¹ve said a

> little

> > > more carefully.

>

> Will do, and I will post my conclusions. I already have a subject

> line in mind: RELIGION: The Ancient Eyeball versus Christianity. And I

> can already think of several posts that come to mind, although they

> were quite awhile ago, so you might not remember them.

>

> As always with you, it should be fun.

>

> By the way, I try to read you very carefully, and in the past you have

> bemoaned my precision (if you don't remember any of these instances I

> will be happy to cite examples). Let's see how far we make it this

> time.

>

> At any rate, you get the last word on Clarence .

>

>

> --

> " Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

> Luther

>

[Guest guest]

What's this, you calling me a liar?

I did see something one an official Ron site several months ago

in which he was very derogatory toward environmentalists. I again

googled Ron , which is how how I found the site in the first

place and what I got did not look familiar at all. Either it was a

different site than what I had originally seen (Kucinich has one for

his Senate position and one for his presidency campaign - the Senate

one actually has better info) or it has very likely been updated,

since they all do that from time to time.

I don't have the free time to do an exhaustive search to find what I

originally saw, if it is still findable. You can trust me or not. I

really don't care since neither is very likely to be a serious

candidate.

> > I put the site line in the Google search field and the result was

a

> > page that said

> >

> > Your search - site:ronpaul2008.com environment - did not match any

> > documents.

> >

> > Was that just a sample or can you give me an example that would

give me

> > a page so I could see what you mean.

>

> That is the whole point -- clearly, the statement is completely

false

> that Ron had environmental information on his site that he just

> recently removed.

>

> I would have to know of a site that recently deleted or changed a

page

> in order to tell you what you could search for to see it in action.

> However, if you just want to see the " cache " button just search for

> anything in Google that turns up results.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Renate,

> What's this, you calling me a liar?

No, I didn't say anything to that effect at all, but said that the

statement was clearly false with respect to Ron 's official

campaign web site. You have not even indicated which of the what are

probably a multitude of sites that are in part or in whole about Ron

that this was, so I find it most likely that you read something

on another site that was later changed, or that perhaps you are

looking for something on one site that was actually on another site.

I don't know which is the case, but, I think if anything were

recentlyremoved from Google that would turn up with " environment " or

" environmentalism " or " environmentalist " on the official campaign

site, the cache would come up. That is not 100% sure fire, but I

think it is highly probable and since this isn't the case, I'm willing

to dismiss your claim unless you uncover any further evidence.

> I did see something one an official Ron site several months ago

> in which he was very derogatory toward environmentalists.

As far as I know, there is one official Ron site for his

presidential campaign: www.ronpaul2008.com. Any other sites, I

presume, are either the one from his congressional campaign if it is

still up or non-official sites. I would like to see a quote rather

than take your word for the " derogatory " term, because you have

conflated stances against some particular ideology with hatred of the

ideologies proponents already. I am not claiming Ron has never

said anything derogatory about environmentalists, but I do not take

your word for it without a quote.

I also do not take the claim seriously that he is misrepresenting his

stance on the environment when he is very open about it, and

furthermore has no incentive when winning the Republican nomination to

do so. His political incentive is to support the war on terror, which

is the one area that would be most likely to cost him the Republican

nomination.

> I again

> googled Ron , which is how how I found the site in the first

> place and what I got did not look familiar at all. Either it was a

> different site than what I had originally seen (Kucinich has one for

> his Senate position and one for his presidency campaign - the Senate

> one actually has better info) or it has very likely been updated,

> since they all do that from time to time.

Lynn posted the archives of the Ron site and I believe the design

was very different, however when I clicked on the oldest version, I

had difficulty accessing the links on the page that turned up, and I'm

not very familiar with how to use the site. Maybe if you play around

with it you can find something to substantiate this. I'm not

particularly interested in it -- I don't think you're lying; I just

don't take this very seriously in the absence of evidence.

> I don't have the free time to do an exhaustive search to find what I

> originally saw, if it is still findable. You can trust me or not. I

> really don't care since neither is very likely to be a serious

> candidate.

Again it is not that I don't trust your honesty; it is just that I

don't trust your paraphrase off memory from what you saw months ago,

nor that your inability to find it necessarily means that the campagin

managers buried it so as to disguise his true positions.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> is a socialist? Are you a nazi?

Every idea that comes out of his mouth has something to do with

increasing the size of the government, taking away individual rights or

how Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves.

If you want to put a label on me I guess you could call me an anti-

federalist or a student of classic liberalism. Which I suppose is the

complete opposite of a nazi.

Marc

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Marc " <wmupton@...>

> > is a socialist? Are you a nazi?

>

> Every idea that comes out of his mouth has something to do with

> increasing the size of the government, taking away individual rights or

> how Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves.

None of those things are definitional of Socialism, other than by someone using

the term to slander anyone who is slightly progressive.

>

> If you want to put a label on me I guess you could call me an anti-

> federalist or a student of classic liberalism. Which I suppose is the

> complete opposite of a nazi.

I used 'nazi' sarcastically, because obviously it is a gross distortion, as is

calling a socialist. A true socialist, or progressive would be

horrified.

[Guest guest]

The Fear Factor

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an

essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly

rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

Full article here:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

---------------------------------

Building a website is a piece of cake.

Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > The Fear Factor

>> > Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an

>> > essential component of those who would have us believe we must

>> increasingly

>> > rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

>> > Full article here:

>> >

>> > http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

>> >

What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the war

is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the truth.

On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite dangerous,

and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is using

that psychology also...

[Guest guest]

DANGEROUS...huh?

It is not productive talking in generalities. If you want to list where/when

Ron has said many 'quite dangerous' things, please do so. Or how about listing

ONE kinda dangerous..let alone MANY 'quite dangerous'.

Otherwise, it's just empty, unsubstantiated hate-mongering.

Oh, BTW, where did Ron use the psychology of fear in his article? He didn't.

He was being specific in backing up his statements. No half-truths, innuendo,

lies, misinformation, etc. If anything, by exposing the fraud of the Bush

Admin, he was doing the exact opposite. I find it difficult to believe you

experienced fear while reading Ron's words...poor dear.

And you insist MY post was pointless? lol

Pamela

Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > The Fear Factor

>> > Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an

>> > essential component of those who would have us believe we must

>> increasingly

>> > rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

>> > Full article here:

>> >

>> > http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

>> >

What point in the discussion is this answering? What he says about the war

is pretty much true, and there are not many in Congress who speak the truth.

On the other hand, what he says about many other things is quite dangerous,

and to imply that one is using the psychology of fear to raise it, is using

that psychology also...

---------------------------------

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.

Visit the Auto Green Center.

[Guest guest]

> None of those things are definitional of Socialism, other than by

> someone using the term to slander anyone who is slightly

progressive.

His ideas are collectivist and is pretty open about being far to the

left, so no slander, I deal with facts. His voting record and

introduced bills suggest this quite clearly. Whatever you want to

label him politically, he is FOR destroying individual liberties just

like all the others except Ron , McKinney, and perhaps

Mike Gravel.

>

> >

> > If you want to put a label on me I guess you could call me an

anti-

> > federalist or a student of classic liberalism. Which I suppose

is the

> > complete opposite of a nazi.

>

> I used 'nazi' sarcastically, because obviously it is a gross

distortion, as is calling a socialist. A true socialist,

or progressive would be horrified.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I used 'nazi' sarcastically, because obviously it is a gross

> distortion, as is calling a socialist. A true socialist,

> or progressive would be horrified.

Unfornutaley, scarcasm doesn't come through too well in typed

messages.